I would prefer for community networks to be able to make reallocations; it could enhance commercial opportunities that could help elevate the network up to traditional ISP status.
My $.02 On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:57 AM David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Jason Schiller <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I support the proposal with the exclusion of section 6.5.9.3. >> I support the proposal with the inclusion of section 6.5.9.3. >> I ask what is the purpose of section 6.5.9.3? >> Is section 6.5.9.3 needed? >> Is section 6.5.9.3 restricting the right thing? >> >> Without section 6.5.9.3 the policy clearly defines a community network, >> and allows what would otherwise be an LIR getting a /32 (or /36 upon >> request) >> get instead a /40. >> >> This would reduce there fees from X-small $1,000 annunally >> (or upon request 2X-small $500 annually) >> to 3X-small $250 annually. >> >> Sounds well and good. >> >> >> Section 6.5.9.3 adds a further restriction of there shall be no no >> re-allocations, >> suggesting they cannot have a user of their space which in turn has its >> own users. >> >> (for the record I think you can drop the text "to other organizations." >> and just have "However, they shall not reallocate resources.") >> >> >> What behavior are you intending to prevent? >> > > Section 6.5.9.3 has two parts. > > The first part says community networks are like other LIRs, they make > reassignments to end-users and makes it abundantly clear that section 6.5.4 > and 6.5.5 apply to community networks. I don't want anyone arguing that > those sections don't apply to community networks. > > The second part is the restriction on making reallocations. This comes > back to a couple of arguments; (A.) If community networks can make > reallocations, then there is no difference between them and a regular > ISP/LIR, and some participants in earlier discussions were adamant there > needed to be a difference between community networks and regular ISPs/LIRs. > (B.) From the debate on ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs, some > participants in that discussion were adamant that a /40 was too small of an > allocation for an ISP, especially if that ISP was to make any > reallocations. > > Doesn't the definition already have the required limits on behavior in the >> form of: >> > >> "A community network is deployed, operated, and governed by its users, >> for the purpose of providing free or low-cost connectivity to the >> community it services." >> >> It appears what you are preventing are the cases below. I ask is this >> what you >> intend to prevent? and if so why? >> >> Should the Colorado IPv6 cooperative be prevented from providing transit >> to the >> Rocky Mountain Spotted IPv6 community network because they in turn assign >> IPv6 addresses to community members? >> >> >> What if this is all within one community network? What if the Rocky >> Mountain >> Spotted IPv6 community network has a part of the network that is managed >> by >> a group in Ball Mountain community and another part is managed by a group >> in >> Mount Lincoln. Wouldn't it make sense to re-allocate some of the Rocky >> Mountain >> Spotted IPv6 community network's /40 to Ball Mountain community and let >> them >> handle the assignments to users in their locale? >> > > Personly, I'd be fine with removing the restriction on community networks > making reallocations, but I'd still want to have section 6.5.9.3 I'd > rewrite is as follows; > > *6.5.9.3. Reassignments by Community Networks* > > *Similar to other LIRs, Community Networks shall make reassignments and > reallocations in accordance with applicable policies, in particular, but > not limited to sections 6.5.4 and 6.5.5. * > > What do others think should community networks be allowed to make > both reassignments and reallocations, or just reassignments? > > Thanks. > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:[email protected] > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > =============================================== > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
